ritory to one province, he might afterwards change the boundary; or if he thought fit, erect the parts into separate and new governments, at his discretion. They alleged the example of Carolina, first one province; then divided into two separate governments, and which afterwards had a third, that of Georgia, taken from the southern division of it. They urged besides, the example of the neutral and conquered islands. These, after the peace of Paris, were placed under one government. Since then, they were totally separated, and had distinct Governors and Assemblies. Although I had the greatest reason to question the soundness of some of these principles, at least in the extent in which they were laid down, and whether the precedents alleged did fully justify them in that latitude; I certainly had no cause to doubt but that the matter would always be determined upon these maxims, at the board by which they were adopted. The more clearly their strict legality was proved, the more uneasy I became at their consequences. By this bill, a new province under an old name was in fact erected. The limits, settled by the proclamation of 1763, were cancelled. On your side, a mere constructive boundary was established, and the construction, when examined, amounted to nothing more than the King's pleasure. No part of your province, (not even of the settled quarters of the country, quite to the river Hudson,) was secured from the possible operation of such a principle. Besides there was a possibility, (at least,) that in the settlement of the boundary, ministers would naturally lean to extend those limits the most, where the royal prerogative was most extensive, and consequently their power the highest. I do not mean to charge them with that intention. But no laws stood in the way of such an inclination, if it ever did exist, or should happen to exist hereafter. This was not (as it might be between two ancient British colonies) a mere question of geographical distinction, or of economical distribution, where the inhabitants on the one side of the line and the other, lived under the same law and enjoyed the same privileges of Englishmen. But this was a boundary, discriminating different principles of jurisdiction and legislation; where, in one part, the subject lived under law, and in the other, under prerogative.

From these impressions, I proposed my objections on the second reading, reserving a more regular opposition to the Committee. In the interval, I conferred with Lord Dartmouth and Mr. Pownall, and afterwards with Lord North,

upon the subject. But first, I formed my plan for an amendment to the clause, as it stood in the bill, before it was committed. I could have wished for a more perfect and authorized information; but I was obliged to act at the instant. The bill came in late in the session, and if I had let it pass for want of being instructed, the occasion could in all human probability never be recovered.

I saw you had claims founded on these grounds. The old Dutch settlement; the placing of the Five Nations within your government; the boundary line of Governors Moore and Carlton; and the maintainance of the Fort of Oswego during the late war, which carried you to Lake Ontario.

These claims had no fault but the want of definition. To define, is to abridge. Something then must be given up; I was persuaded that when one negotiates with power, it is policy to give up handsomely what cannot be retained. and to gain that strength which will always more or less attend the reasonableness of a proposition, even when it is opposed by power. I thought that well secured and tolerably extensive boundaries, were better than the amplest claims, which are neither defined nor allowed. My idea was, to get the limits of Quebec, which appeared to many as well as myself intended to straiten the British colonies, removed from construction to certainty; and that certainty grounded on natural, indisputable and immovable barriers, -rivers and lakes, where I could have them; lines, where lines could be drawn; and where reference and description became necessary, to have them towards an old British colony, and not towards this new, and, as was thought, favorite establishment.

I assured ministry, that if they refused this reasonable offer, I must be heard by council. As they found some opposition growing within and without doors, and they were in haste to carry through their bill brought in so late. in the session, after some discussion and debate, they gave way to the amended clause, as you see it.

The work was far more troublesome than those who were not present can well believe. It cost us near two whole days in the committee. The grand difficulty arose from the very unsettled state of the boundary of Pennsylvania. We could not determine whether it advanced northward beyond Lake Erie, or ran within that Lake, or fell to the south of it; and this uncertainty made the whole matter beyond expression perplexing. Objections on the part of Quebec were raised to the last moment, and particular

lishman. First, the clause provides nothing at all for the territorial jurisdiction of the province. The Crown has the power of carrying the greatest portion of the actually settled part of the province of New York into Canada. It provides for individuals, that they may hold their property; but they must hold it subject to the French laws, subject to French judges, without the benefit of the trial by jury. Whether the English mode of descent is better than the French, or whether a trial by a judge is better than a trial by a jury, it is not for me to decide, but an Englishman has a privilege that makes him think it is better; and there is, sir, as much reason to indulge an Englishman in favor of his prejudice for liberty, as there is to indulge a Frenchman in favor of his prejudice for slavery. The bill turns freedom itself into slavery. These are the reasons that compel me not to acquiesce by any means, either in the proposition originally in the bill, or in the amendment. Nay, the proposition in the amendment is a great deal worse; because you therein make a saving of the right of interference with, and may fix your boundary line at the very gates of New York, perhaps in the very town itself, and subject that colony to the liability of becoming a province of France. It was this state of things, sir, that made me wish to establish a boundary of certainty.”—Debates on the Quebec Bill, pp. 192, 193.

VI.

Ꭱ Ꭼ Ꮇ Ꭺ Ꭱ Ꮶ Ꮪ

UPON THE

BRITISH EXPEDITION TO DANBURY, CONNECTICUT,

IN 1777,

AS NARRATED IN CHAP. II. VOL. III. OF

MARSHALL'S LIFE OF WASHINGTON.

BY ELISHA D. WHITTLESEY.

[MSS. New York Historical Society.[

The passages in MARSHALL'S LIFE OF WASHINGTON, referred to by the writer of the following article, will be found in vol. iii. pp. 74-79, quarto edition. It is not deemed necessary to reprint them here, as most readers are familiar with the work, and the material points to which Mr. WHITTLESEY alludes, are sufficiently indicated in his remarks.